Thomas v Balanced Securities Ltd

In Thomas v Balanced Securities Ltd, the appellant challenged a decision of the trial judge, who had found that the appellant was estopped from denying the existence of an agreement due to his previous conduct in another proceeding. The appellant had been the sole director and secretary of a company that had been the subject of an earlier proceeding, in which the appellant participated as the guiding mind of the company. The trial judge concluded that the company was the alter ego of the appellant and that the appellant was estopped from re-litigating the identical terms in the same instrument in the guarantee proceedings. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in concluding that he had no real prospect of success in defending all or part of the claim and that the judge could have declined to grant summary judgment in light of the complexity of the issues. The respondent sought an order for costs on an indemnity basis, arguing that the appellant was not entitled to a costs statement pursuant to r 705 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) and that s 335 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) applied due to the nature of the proceedings.

The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated any error in the primary judge's decision that he was estopped from denying the existence of an agreement. The court also held that the primary judge did not err in granting summary judgment, as the appellant had no real prospect of success in defending the claim. The court further held that the respondent was entitled to an order for costs on an indemnity basis, as the appellant was not entitled to a costs statement and s 335 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) applied due to the nature of the proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs assessed on the standard basis. The court granted leave to the respondent to file its Notice of Contention.